“She preferred imaginary heroes to the real ones, because when tired of them, the former could be shut up in the tin kitchen till called for, and the latter were less manageable – Louisa Mary Alcottin her famous novel Little Women
This is so true. There are two ways of killing the thoughts of an illuminated mind which do not work well with the modern day politics- Burning their books and reducing them to symbolic carricatures. When I look at the blue, often ill-made, wrongly proportioned statues of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, the head of the drafting committee of the Constitution of Independent India, dotting the numerous Ambedkar Nagars around India, and then I find how little Ambedkar is read by the current generation, I find how well the intellectual class of India, which constituted mostly the descendants of elite Raibahadursfrom the Raj, used this principle.
Ambedkar is respected by all but read by very few. The reason that all the memories of Ambedkar have been reduced to those idols, all his intellectual marks have been erased seems to be its incongruence with the Leftist intellectualism. This leftist intellectualism is grand on slogans but weak on substance. This shows in the hollow Communist regimes around the world which collapsed under their own weight within less than a century of coming to power.
In India, the Communists did the same with Dr Ambedkar. They turned an iconoclast Ambedkar into an idol who speaks nothing, contradicts nothing. An ideologue speaks to the generations after him with his words, his writings, and his speeches. The Left, once it adopted Ambedkar, tried its best to wipe out his thoughts and his words. They went after Ambedkar with such a vengeance that now we see Ambedkar everywhere but know very little about him.
Ambedkar was, in reality, always wary of the Communists and their propensity of creating chaos and anarchy. In his speech ‘The Grammar of Anarchy”, which he made on 25th November, 1949, he famously said referring to the criticism of the Constitution by the Communists (yes, the same people who are touring the nation making the youth read the Preamble of Constitution amended by Indira Gandhi during Emergency),
“The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy.The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come in power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalize or socialize all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the Fundamental Rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their Party fails to come into power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticize, but also to overthrow the State.“
The leftists who create violence under the Pictures of Ambedkar will never want people to know his views about the Communists. They pretend to own Ambedkar while they crush and kill his thought. The sagacity of Ambedkar is clear as we see the direction of leftist propaganda in the second stage as predicted by Ambedkar. The Congress, post-independence, having rid itself of all the intellectual giants like Dr Rajendra Prasad, KM Munshi and all became a party of intellectual pigmies which found its legitimacy in Gandhi.
Appropriating Gandhi’s name for the dynasty of dimwits that Nehru established a cottage industry of pliant intellectuals was created to broad-brush history of Indian independence. To understand the history correctly, it is very important to see the history from someone who wrote about his times with dispassionate eyes of a neutral intellectual. In this sense, Ambedkar’s book “Pakistan or Partition of India”is a brilliant book and an eye-opener. Going through this book one realizes why the left-leaning Academia would have wanted this book to disappear from public view.
This book breaks many carefully and cunningly-crafted fake narratives of the Communists, which they widely use to misguide the youth. Many people, blindfolded, follow their narrative, often thinking it to be ordained by Dr Ambedkar himself to follow the left. How could, say the left educate the Ambedkarites of today that Indian Partition was because of Savarkar’s ideology? How could they be sold into anti-Hindu propaganda, into a belief that Hindus wanted partition?
He mentions how the Hindu politicians worked for long on the faith that India was one nation and how Hindus felt betrayed when the Muslims insisted that they were another nation. Ambedkar writes, “This assertion cuts the whole ground from under the feet of the Hindu politicians. It is natural that they should feel annoyed at it and call it a stab in the back.” Ambedkar however, does not make a case of united India or Akhand Bharat of Savarkarites.
He rather makes a case that Partition (of course, he proposes complete human transfer) will be good for Hindus, although at one point he also hopes, much like Savarkarites that in a decade or so, Muslims will see the futility of the nonsensical entity created merely on the basis of fear and insecurity and come back to the Indian fold. He picks equivalence from Europe and explains that when there are two nations exist under the skin of one manufactured unity, they will fight one another, and eventually escape. He quotes Renan that there ought to be a sense of forgetfulness to achieve unity when the history divides two people.
He explains that the sense of Muslim isolation is because of the distrust the Muslims had towards the Congress. Ambedkar connects the distrust between the two communities with history, where unlike the modern historians he refuses to sugarcoat the events of the ancient past. When we are talking about reparation for the Blacks in the west for the cruelties of the past, it is pertinent that the truth be faced, accepted if not apologized for before moving ahead, in India as well.
He writes about how Mohammad Bin Qasim’s first invasion was not only a political event and after trying to forcefully convert people of Debul by forced circumcision, he killed all those above the age of 17 and turned all those below 17 into slaves. He writes quoting tabaquat-i-Nasir about Bakhtiar Khilji’s invasion in Bihar, mentioning, – most of the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaven heads. They were put to death. Large number of books were found.. but no one could explain their contents as all the men had been killed in the fort and the city being a place of study.
He quotes the period of Shahjahan, whitewashed as great lover, on account of building Tajmahal, from Badshahnamah, how about the temples which were coming up, in Benaras, His majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benares and throughout all his dominions in every place all temples that had begun should be cast down. It was reported from the province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the city of Benares.
These facts are inconvenient in today’s world where except for smaller secular sanctuaries, the globe is split between two major military and missionary religions. But to forget things, they must be known and accepted first. This is what Ambedkar wrote about, this is what Ambedkarites do not want people to read for the fear of the effect it might have on their politico-religious plank. Regarding a great deal of propaganda about Savarkar agreeing to the breaking up of nation spread by the left and modern-day Ambedkarites alike, it is to be noted that he write,
“Mr Jinnah says that India should be cut up into Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr Savarkar, on the other hand, insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution..in his scheme Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for a penalty.”
As we see, this is what the Indian nation eventually strives to do. Ambedkar further writes- This alternative of Mr Savarkar to Pakistan has about it a frankness, a boldness and definiteness which distinguishes it from the irritating vagueness and indefiniteness which characterizes congress declarations about minority rights.
Ambedkar finds the fidgety attitude of Congress to be connected with the fear of Muslims not joining the struggle for the independence of India. Another fact which is thrown often at the face of modern right by Islamist intellectuals posing as intellectuals, about Hindus not being a part of Freedom struggle. Ambedkar calls it out when he quotes Savarkar, regarding latter’s address to the Indian Muslims in regard to support for freedom struggle-
“If you come, with you, if you don’t without you; and if you oppose, inspite of you- the Hindus will continue to fight for their national freedom as best as they can.”
And then Ambedkar does something which has been turned into an act of blasphemy in democratic, independent India. He pushes his knife inside the myth of Gandhi which has been created by the modern-day Congressmen. He calls out the bluff of Gandhi when he entered the Indian political scene claiming to get freedom in six months. He put some conditions to be able to do that and Hindu-Muslim unity was one of those conditions. Gandhi began his career in India on 2nd March 1919 call for Satyagrahwhich he quickly ended on 18th April 1919.
In his 23rd March 1919 Manifesto, Gandhi adds a call for Hindus and Muslims not to clash with one another, while Ambedkar says, there was no reason for this to be mentioned as the fight was against the British. He sears into the overdose of secularism which bordered on a clear case of appeasement which Gandhi brought in, while struggling to find a space for himself in Indian politics. To me, it seems much like the way modern-day Babas act to establish and expand their base.
Then Ambedkar writes about Khilafat which has long been presented to the students of history as something of a fight for independence of India. Ambedkar plainly writes that the objective of Khilafatwas two-fold: to preserve Caliphate and to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. While it shows that India did not fit anywhere in the plans of Khilafat, Ambedkar says both ttwithe ideas were untenable. One, Turkish people themselves wanted Turkey to be a republic and even the Arabs did not want to live under the Caliphate.
He tears into the general perception that Non-Cooperation Movement was started as a nationalist movement to which the Muslims joined in in the name of Khilafat. Ambedkar writes that this is done by quoting special session of Congress in Calcutta on 7thand 8thof September, 1920. He then explains that Non-Cooperation was a tool of Khilafatists,which was adopted by the Congress. Khilafat started on 27thof October, 1919. On 23rdNovember, 1919, first Khilafat meeting was held and the proposal for non-cooperation was discussed.
On 10thof March, 1920, Khilafat adopted non-cooperation as a tool of opposition to the British. On 22ndJune, 1920, Khilafatistsnotified the British warning them of Non-Cooperation unless Turkish matter is resolved before 1stof August, 1920. He thereby prove that rather than the Khilafatists joining the Congress, it was the Congress which joined them in the interest of Caliphate not in the interest of Swarajya.
This is not to say that Non-Cooperation was not Gandhi’s brain child. It was. Gandhi attended the first Khilafat’sfirst meeting and gave this proposal. Ambedkar says that this idea of inviting Gandhi to the meeting was to gain the support of Hindus for the cause of Turkish Caliphate. The notice of non-cooperation was given to the British on 1stJuly 1920, by Gandhi, not by the Khilafatists.
Next two month Gandhi toured the nation with Ali brothers, to build support for Non-Cooperation. Gandhi, tried to explain this alignment with Pan-Islamists as a way of getting their help to Hindu cause. He wrote in Young India on 20thOctober, 1921, opposing Modern Review article which claimed that while Ali Brothers were touring in favor of Caliphate, Gandhi was touring for Swarajya-
“I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central act, with Maulana Mahomed Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Musalman’s life.”
Ambedkar then explains that this was a fake position Gandhi put forth. He goes back and explains that when Muslims sought support of Hindus for the Turkish cause, Hindus were divided in three factions. The first faction opposed Non-Cooperation on principle, the second was willing to come around and support provided Muslims agreed to stop cow slaughter and the third was worried if the success of movement might lead to invasion of India from Afghanistan.
On 10thDecember, 1919, Gandhi urged Hindus to not bring the Cow slaughter issue, stating the test of friendship is assistance in adversity, and that too, unconditional assistance… I do not want to make the stopping of cow-killing a condition precedent to co-operation.” And then we find Ambedkar admitting which many misguided wokes found in Anti-CAA protests as well, when there were riots in Delhi, internal conflicts with secularists and Delhi Minority Commission Chief threatened inviting Islamic nations to invade India.
He quotes Gandhi from Young India, 4thMay, 1921, admitting that Muslims were getting impatient when he wrote that “In their impatient anger, the Musalmans ask for more energetic and more prompt action by the Congress and Khilafat organizations.” What went worse was the action Muslims took. Ambedkar writes: The Muslims were not prepared to wait for Swaraj. They were in a hurry to find the most expeditious means of helping Turkey and saving the Khalifat…They invited the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India.
While the project did not succeed, Ambedkar sticks out his neck to claim that- In his (Gandhi’s) misguided zeal for Swaraj and his obsession on Hindu-Moslem unity, as the only means of achieving it, led him to support the project. Gandhi thundered that – “I would, in a sense, certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan if he waged war against the British Government.”
Ambedkar than questions aloud – Can any sane man go so far for the sake of Hindu-Moslem unity? But Mr Gandhi was so attached to Hindu-Moslem unity that he did not stop to enquire what he was really doing in this mad endeavor. Ambedkar also refers to the Muslim appeasement policy when he write that Gandhi has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus.
Ambedkar writes quoting the murder of Swami Shraddhanand and others, that while number of Hindus murdered is not important what is important is that the leading Muslims never condemned these acts. Ambedkar writes that Gandhi even condoned large-scale Moplah violence when he said- ‘brave God-fearing Moplahs who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious and that the hindus must have the courage and faith to feel that they can protect their religion in spite of such fanatical eruptions.
Congress resolution on the matter was watered down to mention in the end that the provocations beyond endurance was given to the Moplahs and the reports published were exaggerated. Then Dr. Ambedkar lists out the numerous riots to bring home the point about failure of all these efforts by Gandhi to bring communal unity by appeasing one of the community. Ambedkar then proceeds to make the case for Partition, explaining the reason of incompatibility of Muslim community in tolerant co-existence with competing faith (I think, I agree more with Savarkar who thought it possible).
He mentions the status of women in Muslim society, about Purdah, about acceptance of slavery in Islam. He writes “The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion (wasn’t Tharoor boo-ed in Shaheen Bagh on charge of secularism). The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the programme of the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate is that he should agree to replace the old lamps of the Masjid by supplying the new ones at his costs, to provide a new carpet for the Masjid or to repair the Masjid because it has become dilapidated.
He says that while there are social evils among Hindus, some of them are conscious of their existence and agitate for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evil and do not therefore agitate for their removal. He calls Muslims all over the world as unprogressive people. He quotes Renan thatthe Mussalman, remaining faithful to his religion, has not progressed; he has remained stationary in a world of swiftly moving modern forces.
Ambedkar tries to analyze the mind of Indian Muslim and writes that Muslim mind is always feeling that the Hindus around him are encroaching upon him and de-Mussalmanising him. There are other things, very factual and deeply analytical, Ambedkar wrote about the difficulties on Hindus and Muslims being in a unified nation, the financial and security-related advantages of partition. However, these excerpts are enough to show the truth of Gandhi and Savarkar in Partition in the writings of Ambedkar and his own views about Partition.
This goes against the contrived narrative of mendacity, falsehood and conspiracy built by the leftist media in connivance with a Islamist supremacist mob to twist the truth of Ambedkar to ensure the headcount in the name of Dalit-Muslim unity only to bring down a numerically superior but largely secular and unsuspecting Hindu population. The truth is that the only religion working against this nation is that of Marx and Mao.
“Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.” – James Baldwin